If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I went back further, because we need some sample size and years to see how it all played out. Not one guy drafted from 2012-17 in that range is a solid role player for the team that drafted them. Basically, none make it to their 2nd contract.

And yeah, guys like Herro and PJ were fine and got minutes and might be outliers five years from now. Still be on their teams and contributing as good role players. But history says not to bet on it

Sure, but I think it also depends on the cutoff point. For example, if a player is drafted to a team and plays out their rookie deal with the team that drafted them and produces well for only the last 2 years of that deal, and then goes on to continue producing well for a different team, are we counting that as a player failing to be a solid roleplayer for the team that drafted them even though they actually were a solid roleplayer for the team that drafted them, and just ended up somewhere else anyway (as part of a trade, say, or due to another team overpaying with star money for a roleplayer)?

Again, this is just a rough evaluation, but if I look at the years 2010 until 2017 at the 7-19 range exclusively, and look for players who produced at least 2 years of decent roleplayer value for the team that drafted them, this is what I get. Note that I am excluding players who went on to become stars; I'm only mentioning picks who went on to become roleplayers, otherwise guys like McCollum and Giannis and Bam also fall into this pick range.

2017:Luke Kennard, picked #12 overall for Detroit. Has improved in the box score every year, is a good 3pt shooter on high volume, decent roleplayer.2016: Nobody. Closest is Malik Beasley, who played 3.5 years for Denver (Traded ths year) but was only really producing value for one.2015: Nobody.2014:TJ Warren, picked at #14 overall by Phoenix. Played 5 years there, was a major rotation piece for them for 3 of those years. Julius Randle was also this year, #7 for the Lakers, played 4 years there and had developed into a starter and a basically 30 minute per night guy.2013:Steven Adams went #12 for OKC, Dennis Schroeder went #17 for Atlanta, both guys went on to become major minutes guys on the original drafted teams. Adams is still on OKC and is still providing good play for them.2012:Harrison Barnes went #7 to Golden State; don't need to explain his role there. 2011:Klay at #11 to Golden State feels kind of like a cheat; he's kind of a roleplayer because he's the definition of 3&D with no other utility like self creation or playmaking, but he's a supercharged roleplayer so maybe it doesn't count. Markieff Morris went at #13 and he became a decent roleplayer for his last few years in Phoenix.2010:Avery Bradley at #19 to Boston, where he played 6 years and was a major rotation piece by the end of the rookie deal (28mpg in year 3, 31 in year 4). Ed Davis at #13 to Toronto, where he played 2.5 years and was a fairly consistent rotation piece for most of that time.

So that's not a ton of players (is in fact only 10 players in 8 drafts) of course, but in fairness there are also a ton of players picked in this range who ended up being way better than roleplayers: Andre Drummond, McCollum, Donovan Mitchell, Giannis, Kawhi Leonard, Bam Adebayo, etc. And I was being pretty restrictive by demanding at least 2 years of real rotation piece/roleplayer play within the first 4 years and only for the team that drafted them (since that's a pretty big part of your argument).

Do you have a point? Yes, you're right that not that many guys picked in this range ended up being productive roleplayers for the team that drafted them within the lifespan of their rookie deal. But there are definitely some, and if you think that you, as an executive and a scouting team, are capable of identifying who that will be, surely you can at least understand the argument for selecting that guy over, say, Thon Maker, who people tout as being a potential star if-only?

I was surprised though, in fairness, at the number of really good college players who dropped into this range in the draft and who (predictably) ended up being really good in the NBA. Kemba Walker, Paul George, CJ again, etc. I'd be optimistic and say hopefully one of them falls into our range this year and you can just pick someone who's great that shouldn't have fallen, but then again it is the 2020 draft and there isn't anyone incredible so that's unlikely.

Sure, but I think it also depends on the cutoff point. For example, if a player is drafted to a team and plays out their rookie deal with the team that drafted them and produces well for only the last 2 years of that deal, and then goes on to continue producing well for a different team, are we counting that as a player failing to be a solid roleplayer for the team that drafted them even though they actually were a solid roleplayer for the team that drafted them, and just ended up somewhere else anyway (as part of a trade, say, or due to another team overpaying with star money for a roleplayer)?

Again, this is just a rough evaluation, but if I look at the years 2010 until 2017 at the 7-19 range exclusively, and look for players who produced at least 2 years of decent roleplayer value for the team that drafted them, this is what I get. Note that I am excluding players who went on to become stars; I'm only mentioning picks who went on to become roleplayers, otherwise guys like McCollum and Giannis and Bam also fall into this pick range.

2017:Luke Kennard, picked #12 overall for Detroit. Has improved in the box score every year, is a good 3pt shooter on high volume, decent roleplayer.2016: Nobody. Closest is Malik Beasley, who played 3.5 years for Denver (Traded ths year) but was only really producing value for one.2015: Nobody.2014:TJ Warren, picked at #14 overall by Phoenix. Played 5 years there, was a major rotation piece for them for 3 of those years. Julius Randle was also this year, #7 for the Lakers, played 4 years there and had developed into a starter and a basically 30 minute per night guy.2013:Steven Adams went #12 for OKC, Dennis Schroeder went #17 for Atlanta, both guys went on to become major minutes guys on the original drafted teams. Adams is still on OKC and is still providing good play for them.2012:Harrison Barnes went #7 to Golden State; don't need to explain his role there. 2011:Klay at #11 to Golden State feels kind of like a cheat; he's kind of a roleplayer because he's the definition of 3&D with no other utility like self creation or playmaking, but he's a supercharged roleplayer so maybe it doesn't count. Markieff Morris went at #13 and he became a decent roleplayer for his last few years in Phoenix.2010:Avery Bradley at #19 to Boston, where he played 6 years and was a major rotation piece by the end of the rookie deal (28mpg in year 3, 31 in year 4). Ed Davis at #13 to Toronto, where he played 2.5 years and was a fairly consistent rotation piece for most of that time.

So that's not a ton of players (is in fact only 10 players in 8 drafts) of course, but in fairness there are also a ton of players picked in this range who ended up being way better than roleplayers: Andre Drummond, McCollum, Donovan Mitchell, Giannis, Kawhi Leonard, Bam Adebayo, etc. And I was being pretty restrictive by demanding at least 2 years of real rotation piece/roleplayer play within the first 4 years and only for the team that drafted them (since that's a pretty big part of your argument).

Do you have a point? Yes, you're right that not that many guys picked in this range ended up being productive roleplayers for the team that drafted them within the lifespan of their rookie deal. But there are definitely some, and if you think that you, as an executive and a scouting team, are capable of identifying who that will be, surely you can at least understand the argument for selecting that guy over, say, Thon Maker, who people tout as being a potential star if-only?

I was surprised though, in fairness, at the number of really good college players who dropped into this range in the draft and who (predictably) ended up being really good in the NBA. Kemba Walker, Paul George, CJ again, etc. I'd be optimistic and say hopefully one of them falls into our range this year and you can just pick someone who's great that shouldn't have fallen, but then again it is the 2020 draft and there isn't anyone incredible so that's unlikely.

You are making the same points I make in the article. Yes, some end up being way better than role players. Usually the ones with elite physical traits or one supreme skill.

And that is also very common in the guys who bust. So, take one of those guys. Dont take the guy who is kind of good at everything with above avg athleticism. The guy who projects as a good role player. Because he might be that, but not for you.

Go boom or bust. If it booms, he will be worth the second contract. If he busts, you get to cut bait and not waste time or resources. But the in the middle guys...history says you will waste time on them and then they will go have their best years for an opponent. You are basically acting as a minor league for your competitors

And that is also very common in the guys who bust. So, take one of those guys. Dont take the guy who is kind of good at everything with above avg athleticism. The guy who projects as a good role player. Because he might be that, but not for you.

Go boom or bust. If it booms, he will be worth the second contract. If he busts, you get to cut bait and not waste time or resources. But the in the middle guys...history says you will waste time on them and then they will go have their best years for an opponent. You are basically acting as a minor league for your competitors

I think a big part of the issue is potential vs quality. You point out that yes, every year people get drafted on the assumption that they'll be good and then they either aren't, or they take so long to become good that they're being good in a different jersey. This is true. But if you have a player who is good in college, and you legitimately believe that they won't take that long and that they're going to be just good immediately, then you have to ask yourself a question.

A) Do I draft X player, who has a glimmer of stardom in them but needs everything to fall right for them to reach it, and is very likely to bust?
OR
B) Do I draft Y player, whose stardom chances are smaller, but who I believe will be good and productive for me immediately and will almost certainly not be a bust?

Now obviously for you, the answer is A. But if you are absolutely concrete in your belief in the player in B, then you aren't really wrong for preferring that option, necessarily. It's just a difference in philosophical approach; do you take the $1000 and walk away, or do you risk it all for a higher jackpot? I can certainly understand your approach, and again, maybe your article will be so overwhelming in its evidence that you will change my mind as well, and if I had bigger doubts about Vassell's immediate value then I'd probably agree with you anyway.

What would be your theory on why guys drafted in the 7-19 range never become role players who stay on the team that drafted them? I have a few of my own, but if you are going to go against all the past data, you have to have logic for why this time will be different.

Because, I have done extensive research and I will share the piece soon, but basically, every team with a sure fire superstar and high usage talent thinks the same way and they all get burned. Literally, every one. They all go for low usage role players who can "fit" and it never works for them. They take upperclassmen, for the most part, but in all cases - role player types. Some examples --

Cavs draft Lebron, next year take upperclassmen Luke Jackson
Magic have Dwight as their franchise guy. At 11, take senior JJ Redick (who wasn't good for them btw)
Hornets take Chris Paul, next draft take senior Hilton Armstrong at 12
OKC has their studs....at 11 they take upperclassmen Cole Aldrich
Hawks have Trae Young, and Hunter was only a sophomore, but was a very safe 'low usage 3-and-D' pick

I can go on and on. Every team does the same thing. Once they get their franchise piece they become more risk adverse. They think they can win sooner, so they take older players and/or players who can fit now. I went into this piece I am writing with no thesis, just wanting to see what history says, and it has blown me away how obvious the takeaway is.

Every team does the same thing, and has made the same mistakes at this point and it blows me away that the trend hasn't been spotted yet.

Maybe add Brogdon to the list? DiVincenzo destined to not be at the Bucks long term either?

I think a big part of the issue is potential vs quality. You point out that yes, every year people get drafted on the assumption that they'll be good and then they either aren't, or they take so long to become good that they're being good in a different jersey. This is true. But if you have a player who is good in college, and you legitimately believe that they won't take that long and that they're going to be just good immediately, then you have to ask yourself a question.

A) Do I draft X player, who has a glimmer of stardom in them but needs everything to fall right for them to reach it, and is very likely to bust?
OR
B) Do I draft Y player, whose stardom chances are smaller, but who I believe will be good and productive for me immediately and will almost certainly not be a bust?

Now obviously for you, the answer is A. But if you are absolutely concrete in your belief in the player in B, then you aren't really wrong for preferring that option, necessarily. It's just a difference in philosophical approach; do you take the $1000 and walk away, or do you risk it all for a higher jackpot? I can certainly understand your approach, and again, maybe your article will be so overwhelming in its evidence that you will change my mind as well, and if I had bigger doubts about Vassell's immediate value then I'd probably agree with you anyway.

What I would add to B is -- He might be productive for you immediately, but history says he wont be on your team in 4 years and you wont get anything of value for him when he leaves. Like your TJ Warren example. Yeah, he was fine production wise. Didnt add to wins, but yeah gave some production. But wasnt on the team as he hit what should be his prime and didnt fetch anything of value. And he was one of the best case scenarios of all the 'B' types.

The issue seems to be two-fold. #1 --if a guy is a solid role player, he has the desire to see if he can be more. A guy doesnt just want to be a good role player fro ages 20-35. They, like all humans, want to grow and see their ceiling. Usually players are fine becoming role players only after they have failed and have been humbled in other places. Second issue is the second contract. See: Taurean Prince. The Hawks saw a fine little role player but then Prince told them he would want 15-20 mil per in his second contract, which is why they traded him. Might also be the reason they trade John Collins soon (he is asking for a max)

You draft a nice little role player and by year 3 he is asking for a bigger role that you dont have to offer and is talking 20 mil for his next contract. You know you can go out and sign a similar role player for the MLE. This has happened several times and is one of my theories for why you dont see role players on the same thing that drafted them.

The NBA is so much more complex than "How good is a guy? What are his numbers?" .....and to crack the code, you gotta study history. And history says that if Vassell becomes what you think he will, it wont be the team who drafted him that benefits.

Maybe add Brogdon to the list? DiVincenzo destined to not be at the Bucks long term either?

Yeah, I got several more on the list. That was just a taste.

And you are right, history says DiVencenzo either becomes a quasi all star (or better) or he is off the team in a few years.

Its really weird and it goes against our instincts as human beings, but the history is overwhelming here. Every team does the same thing after striking gold and it only worked out for one team -- the Blazers, the year after they got their franchise star (Lillard) took another 4 year player (McCollum). But he was by no means a safe pick, having gone to a small school. That was the one time it worked though.

What I would add to B is -- He might be productive for you immediately, but history says he wont be on your team in 4 years and you wont get anything of value for him when he leaves. Like your TJ Warren example. Yeah, he was fine production wise. Didnt add to wins, but yeah gave some production. But wasnt on the team as he hit what should be his prime and didnt fetch anything of value.

I think we're just talking at cross purposes, at this point.

I find it weird that you focus so heavily on the player providing value to you in 5, 6, 7 years as a metric of draft-worthiness, but at the same time you advocate so heavily for drafting boom/bust prospects who might never provide value to you at all, in any years. Is it worse to draft a player who gives you 3 solid roleplayer years and then leaves for nothing than it is to draft someone who gives you 0 value at all and also ends up being dumped for nothing? Obviously you think so, but personally I wouldn't. Of course you have the vanishingly small chance that said boom/bust prospect actually pans out and you end up retaining them to recoup some of the early-years-lost-value later on, but that's - as I said - vanishingly small; you have more likelihood of the roleplayer actually panning out, even if that likelihood is itself also small.

Now, I do get the logic that teams are generally bad at identifying those players who will be the effective roleplayers in this range, and that they also often fall victim to the sunk-cost fallacy; they've drafted this player they thought was going to be a good roleplayer, he wasn't, and now they're inclined to maybe overpay him to retain him because they've already poured years of development into him and he's kinda good, whereas with a boom/bust player it's easier to cut loose and therefore minimise the losses.

But the criticism there is essentially that front offices are bad at their jobs: bad at talent evaluation, bad at projections, and bad at making long term roster moves. That's a valid criticism, sure, but is it a criticism of the drafting process itself, or a criticism of their managerial ability long term?

I find it weird that you focus so heavily on the player providing value to you in 5, 6, 7 years as a metric of draft-worthiness, but at the same time you advocate so heavily for drafting boom/bust prospects who might never provide value to you at all, in any years. Is it worse to draft a player who gives you 3 solid roleplayer years and then leaves for nothing than it is to draft someone who gives you 0 value at all and also ends up being dumped for nothing? Obviously you think so, but personally I wouldn't. Of course you have the vanishingly small chance that said boom/bust prospect actually pans out and you end up retaining them to recoup some of the early-years-lost-value later on, but that's - as I said - vanishingly small; you have more likelihood of the roleplayer actually panning out, even if that likelihood is itself also small.

Now, I do get the logic that teams are generally bad at identifying those players who will be the effective roleplayers in this range, and that they also often fall victim to the sunk-cost fallacy; they've drafted this player they thought was going to be a good roleplayer, he wasn't, and now they're inclined to maybe overpay him to retain him because they've already poured years of development into him and he's kinda good, whereas with a boom/bust player it's easier to cut loose and therefore minimise the losses.

But the criticism there is essentially that front offices are bad at their jobs: bad at talent evaluation, bad at projections, and bad at making long term roster moves. That's a valid criticism, sure, but is it a criticism of the drafting process itself, or a criticism of their managerial ability long term?

To me, yes, I would rather draft a guy who totally busts and gives me nothing than say an Austin Rivers or even a TJ Warren who gives me a little something that really doesn't matter in the end

Several reasons for this. The first, is that I can get that from a cheap vet in the immediate any way. Or trade for a guy who already provides that and give up little in return. The second, is that teams use up resources, prevent themselves from making other moves and/or dont have opportunities to give other guys an opportunity

Long story short -- the guy you are searching for can always be found. With far less opportunity cost and resources given. Dont use the draft to try and find that guy. The draft will be your best opportunity to find a major piece for a relatively low asset cost. So use it as such.

And believe me, I understand this is counterintuitive. And thats why almost every GM still goes with the conventional line of thinking.

I went into the research with no thesis. Just wanted to see what usually worked in our range in the draft and what teams usually did the year after drafting their cornerstone, when they had a pick in this range. And I was blown away with the results of that history, and it was quite easy to reach conclusions with the data when you don't go into it wanting to have an answer that fits an already predetermined ideology.

To me, yes, I would rather draft a guy who totally busts and gives me nothing than say an Austin Rivers or even a TJ Warren who gives me a little something that really doesn't matter in the end

Several reasons for this. The first, is that I can get that from a cheap vet in the immediate any way. Or trade for a guy who already provides that and give up little in return. The second, is that teams use up resources, prevent themselves from making other moves and/or dont have opportunities to give other guys an opportunity

Long story short -- the guy you are searching for can always be found. With far less opportunity cost and resources given. Dont use the draft to try and find that guy. The draft will be your best opportunity to find a major piece for a relatively low asset cost. So use it as such.

Well that's partially what I was saying; your complaint is at least half as much to do with managerial strategies as it is to do with actual draft picks and players.

And as for the final part, about it being your best opportunity to find a major piece with low cost, then sure. If you think there's a guy who has that potential, then I'm not going to fight with you about it. If you look at Pokusevski, for example, and think that there's even a 5% chance of him panning out at a high end outcome (Rather than say, a 0.0000005% chance) and you say that's enough reason for you to want to draft him at #13 or whatever, then go for it. It's not like I'm blaming anyone for that, or saying there's no sense in it. I'm just not also pretending that there's no value in someone like a Tyler Herro, because I don't have this presupposition that says that a player needs to still be on the team in 9 years for them to have contributed anything of worth during the time they are on the team.

As for your comment about being able to acquire cheap vets at any time anyway, is that even true? You've said it yourself a thousand times, we are New Orleans. We are not a free agent destination. Obviously we got Redick this year just past and finagled a trade for Favors due to Utah's situation, but those are exceptions rather than the rule; most of the time we're overpaying for Solomon Hill. Obviously you hope that Griffin is smart enough to avoid overpaying for a Solomon Hill going forward, but again, at that point we're onto managerial strategies.

Well that's partially what I was saying; your complaint is at least half as much to do with managerial strategies as it is to do with actual draft picks and players.

And as for the final part, about it being your best opportunity to find a major piece with low cost, then sure. If you think there's a guy who has that potential, then I'm not going to fight with you about it. If you look at Pokusevski, for example, and think that there's even a 5% chance of him panning out at a high end outcome (Rather than say, a 0.0000005% chance) and you say that's enough reason for you to want to draft him at #13 or whatever, then go for it. It's not like I'm blaming anyone for that, or saying there's no sense in it. I'm just not also pretending that there's no value in someone like a Tyler Herro, because I don't have this presupposition that says that a player needs to still be on the team in 9 years for them to have contributed anything of worth during the time they are on the team.

As for your comment about being able to acquire cheap vets at any time anyway, is that even true? You've said it yourself a thousand times, we are New Orleans. We are not a free agent destination. Obviously we got Redick this year just past and finagled a trade for Favors due to Utah's situation, but those are exceptions rather than the rule; most of the time we're overpaying for Solomon Hill. Obviously you hope that Griffin is smart enough to avoid overpaying for a Solomon Hill going forward, but again, at that point we're onto managerial strategies.

When you have a good team, with contending type pieces -- yes, it is pretty easy. You get guys off the scrap heap, looking to redeem themselves and win for cheap. And they are hungry and willing to do the little things because they usually came out of a losing situation. I am not talking about 4 year FA commitments at bigger contracts. I am talking about JaMychel Green signing with the Clippers, Austin Rivers and Ben McLemore and countless others to the Rockets for the minimum. Dwight Howard and Avery Bradley to the Lakers for nothing. Wesley Matthews going to Milwaukee. Heck, Milwaukee getting Brook Lopez for 3 million two years ago, etc.

Soon, this should be a contending team. A high profile team that could get guys like that the exposure they need to maybe secure another contract down the line. Thats why all the good teams in the league have those guys as role players, not guys they drafted. Because they see Brogdon wants 80+ million, but they can get what he gave them from paying Wesley Matthews and half of that combined.

Again, there has to be a reason that when you look at the good role players around the league, that almost none of them are with the team that drafted them. Tyler Herro would actually have been on my boom or bust list - not my role player list because he has one super elite skill. Mark my words, he will either be a quasi All Star/Star in 4 years or he wont be on the Heat. There is no other outcome. If he is a solid role player, they will trade him and find someone to provide similar output for a fraction of the cost of Herro's second contract.

When I go into FA or a trade, I am thinking about what I might be able to get from the guy for the next few years. When I go into the draft, I think about years 4-10 and what he would give me then. So, I go boom or bust. If I see a solid role player, I consider maybe circling back to that guy for his second or third contract, when I get him for practically nothing and he has been humbled into being happy to be a role player.

When you have a good team, with contending type pieces -- yes, it is pretty easy. You get guys off the scrap heap, looking to redeem themselves and win for cheap. And they are hungry and willing to do the little things because they usually came out of a losing situation. I am not talking about 4 year FA commitments at bigger contracts. I am talking about JaMychel Green signing with the Clippers, Austin Rivers and Ben McLemore and countless others to the Rockets for the minimum. Dwight Howard and Avery Bradley to the Lakers for nothing. Wesley Matthews going to Milwaukee. Heck, Milwaukee getting Brook Lopez for 3 million two years ago, etc.

Soon, this should be a contending team. A high profile team that could get guys like that the exposure they need to maybe secure another contract down the line. Thats why all the good teams in the league have those guys as role players, not guys they drafted. Because they see Brogdon wants 80+ million, but they can get what he gave them from paying Wesley Matthews and half of that combined.

Again, there has to be a reason that when you look at the good role players around the league, that almost none of them are with the team that drafted them. Tyler Herro would actually have been on my boom or bust list - not my role player list because he has one super elite skill. Mark my words, he will either be a quasi All Star/Star in 4 years or he wont be on the Heat. There is no other outcome. If he is a solid role player, they will trade him and find someone to provide similar output for a fraction of the cost of Herro's second contract.

When I go into FA or a trade, I am thinking about what I might be able to get from the guy for the next few years. When I go into the draft, I think about years 4-10 and what he would give me then. So, I go boom or bust. If I see a solid role player, I consider maybe circling back to that guy for his second or third contract, when I get him for practically nothing and he has been humbled into being happy to be a role player.

I think at this point we're just arguing in circles to be honest. To go back to Herro, you have him on your boom and bust list, and that just tells me that how we identify a boom/bust player is completely different, because I consider Herro a roleplayer. You argue that either he's an allstar or he's gone, I say maybe that's the case but it's possible for a player to produce value during that time anyway and that I'd rather someone produce some value and then either walk (in which case I have lost nothing but gained those years of value) or get traded (in which case they have provided some value, even if not superstar value), than someone I consider a boom/bust candidate like Pokusevski this year or Bol Bol last year, who might provide you equally nothing when they leave, but also provide nothing while they're there. At that point, we're back to where we were multiple posts again.

For Vassell, I think he has elite skill in certain areas too. I'm not going to go through them here because it's been discussed a thousand times on this thread already, but I think he has just as much elite promise as Herro did; yes, he's one year older, but he's also much better than Herro was in many ways, and it's not like he's 24 or something, he's still at an age where (for example) the flashes of playmaking he's shown could continue to develop.

In any case, I don't think I have much new to add to the conversation beyond what we've already said, and I think you're fairly firm in your position as of right now as well. Let me know when that article comes out, and maybe it'll change my mind.

I think at this point we're just arguing in circles to be honest. To go back to Herro, you have him on your boom and bust list, and that just tells me that how we identify a boom/bust player is completely different, because I consider Herro a roleplayer. You argue that either he's an allstar or he's gone, I say maybe that's the case but it's possible for a player to produce value during that time anyway and that I'd rather someone produce some value and then either walk (in which case I have lost nothing but gained those years of value) or get traded (in which case they have provided some value, even if not superstar value), than someone I consider a boom/bust candidate like Pokusevski this year or Bol Bol last year, who might provide you equally nothing when they leave, but also provide nothing while they're there. At that point, we're back to where we were multiple posts again.

For Vassell, I think he has elite skill in certain areas too. I'm not going to go through them here because it's been discussed a thousand times on this thread already, but I think he has just as much elite promise as Herro did; yes, he's one year older, but he's also much better than Herro was in many ways, and it's not like he's 24 or something, he's still at an age where (for example) the flashes of playmaking he's shown could continue to develop.

In any case, I don't think I have much new to add to the conversation beyond what we've already said, and I think you're fairly firm in your position as of right now as well. Let me know when that article comes out, and maybe it'll change my mind.

I am just going to have to put out the article and data and we can discuss. Because I bring up all these points in the piece. For example -- surprisingly, no they do not get value in a trade. Every time, the good role player gets less in return than the resource the team had to use to get him. And no, I dont think they provide value those first few years. Not REAL value, anyway. Young guys just dont help you win games that matter. The great ones do, sometimes. But Tyler Herro would have been DNP, or at least very rarely used in playoff games had it happened.

I will publish in the next week, then we can discuss. I like disagreement, and quite frankly I probably would have agreed with you on many points 3 weeks ago. But the evidence is overwhelming.

I love reading y’all going back and forth. Personally I’m a total boom or bust guy but I’d expect them to at least be role players. I believe the top 10 spots should be our starters and top bench options. The last 5 to me should be those draft picks/young players that your trying to see if they can either progress to starter or role player. Hayes, DiDi, NAW all should only see time if they either beat out someone or injuries.

I love those late picks that you can take chances on that won’t come back to bite you because of where you picked them. The true boom or bust types and this year it’s Cassius Stanley for me. Good size and very athletic which is my starting point for all those picks. Other than that I’m doing the picks thing until we could get to a point of players wanting to come play for us on the cheap.

I love reading y’all going back and forth. Personally I’m a total boom or bust guy but I’d expect them to at least be role players. I believe the top 10 spots should be our starters and top bench options. The last 5 to me should be those draft picks/young players that your trying to see if they can either progress to starter or role player. Hayes, DiDi, NAW all should only see time if they either beat out someone or injuries.

I love those late picks that you can take chances on that won’t come back to bite you because of where you picked them. The true boom or bust types and this year it’s Cassius Stanley for me. Good size and very athletic which is my starting point for all those picks. Other than that I’m doing the picks thing until we could get to a point of players wanting to come play for us on the cheap.

Cassius fits the athletic profile but I cant see the world in which he BOOMS. A fine role player, sure. But to me he is 'meh' or bust

The guys who boom.usually had at least had some moments in college where they were the best player on the floor. Cassius was rarely one of the 3 best players on the floor.

If I had to bet on an athletic freak in our range, it would be Josh Green. There were times, when the ball wasn't in Mannions hands that you could see flashes of a game changing stud. I think we will look back a few years from now and see that Green just went to the wrong team for his skill set

And believe me, I understand this is counterintuitive. And thats why almost every GM still goes with the conventional line of thinking.

I went into the research with no thesis. Just wanted to see what usually worked in our range in the draft and what teams usually did the year after drafting their cornerstone, when they had a pick in this range. And I was blown away with the results of that history, and it was quite easy to reach conclusions with the data when you don't go into it wanting to have an answer that fits an already predetermined ideology.

Counterintuitive is right. It's an absolute inverse with what I've thought about drafting. Going with the expectation of eventually not having the player. Never thought about it like that before. And there's this near total excisement of the human element. Like if Marty Byrd were running a team.

Puts me totally out of my depth. But it's just as compelling and fascinating to see unfold.

Counterintuitive is right. It's an absolute inverse with what I've thought about drafting. Going with the expectation of eventually not having the player. Never thought about it like that before. And there's this near total excisement of the human element. Like if Marty Byrd were running a team.

Puts me totally out of my depth. But it's just as compelling and fascinating to see unfold.

I first got into inverse thinking from a Freakonomics pod. Basically, companies that did the following exercise had a much higher success rate:

Three years from now, your business has failed. Why?

Optimism bias makes us assume success (or at least non failure) will happen, so we spend all our time thinking about how to make the success greater. What innovations we can add, where we can get even more efficient, etc. But if you start with the opposite and assume failure, it will become clear what could take you down, and because of that you focus on your processes, your potential liabilities, etc

I also think backwards when it comes to how we spend resources. So, if I were an NBA GM and were offered the 40th pick for Frank Jackson, I would do it. Most people would say this is selling low or have trouble eating the sunk cost. But I would say - If I had the 40th pick and Frank Jackson was never on this roster, would I trade it for him? When you look at it that way, it makes trading Frank for pick 40 much clearer. It forces you to remove your current bias, which is always going to be towards the thing you have.

The best way to make decisions in life is to recognize your bias and what you want the results to be. Reverse to the other side and make the argument of the counter to the best of your abilities. Do that, and you will have much more success. Go with optimism bias and you will get lucky occasionally but the positive outcomes will actually make you more biased

Enjoying the conversation (especially with no games)...how would we classify last year's picks with the info we had at the time? Hayes boom/bust, Didi role player, NAW role player?

Hayes: He will be a twice a month regular on ESPN's "Top 10 Plays of the Day". With no inclination toward defense, he will never be a full time starter.
Didi: Benefitted by playing in Australia. He will be a solid role player...maybe a more athletic JJ (though not the shooter)
NAW: Will not make it to a second contract in New Orleans. Had he been handled like Frank, Didi or Cheick were (stashed), he might be in a better position to contribute. But, as it is, in 2019/20, he's laid an egg.

Because of Griff's Genius, Gayle Benson now owns a second NBA Franchise for the next seven years,

Enjoying the conversation (especially with no games)...how would we classify last year's picks with the info we had at the time? Hayes boom/bust, Didi role player, NAW role player?

Hayes wouldn't have been in my boom or bust category last year, because when I look back at Centers who outperformed their draft position, I see guys with guard skills and/or shooting (Jokic, Sabonis, Adebayo, Olynyk, Turner) Or physically imposing bodies that make them monsters in the paint (S Adams, A Drummond). Hayes wouldn't have fit that. I think he becomes an above avg role player, but again, history says that won't be with us long term.

Didi's floor is non-NBA talent, ceiling is mid-range role player and NAW has a ceiling of a high end role player (I compared him to Brogdon), but again history says that won't be with us.

Now, with that said, maybe this has been a trend and the trend changes and teams stick with their own drafted guys as role players moving forward. But I wouldn't bet on it because of the second contract situation. If a guy shows he is a really good role player in his first 4 years, some team out there will want to pay him like a #2 guy -- see the aforementioned Brogdon as an example, or Taurean Prince to a lesser extent. If the guy is just an average role player, the team will likely get impatient and try to find an upgrade, or at least a veteran who is just as good but does the veteran things coaches prefer. Guy gets disgruntled and team moves on. That has played out a ton.

It just seems like role players need to be humbled before they fully accept and embrace the role. Thats why I am super interested in seeing the Josh Hart negotiations. He is already on his second team, has likely already been humbled. But I wouldn't be shocked if he asks for 15-16 mil per year and the Pelicans like him but you know you can get a role player for the MLE, maybe less. If Pels offer him 4/40, he will be insulted. This is the issue with young role players coming out of their cheap rookie deal

That is not correct. 2 way players are tied to the team they sign with. It's not like practice squads in the NFL or just simply assigning a player to the G League.

I wasnt clear.

The player would have to forgo guaranteed contracts to sign a two way deal, for some reason. Which simply wont happen in Didi's case because he has leverage of teams wanting to sign him to guaranteed deals.

Look at the number of 2nd round picks, mind you high 2nds, who have ever signed a two way contract with the team who drafted them

The player would have to forgo guaranteed contracts to sign a two way deal, for some reason. Which simply wont happen in Didi's case because he has leverage of teams wanting to sign him to guaranteed deals.

Look at the number of 2nd round picks, mind you high 2nds, who have ever signed a two way contract with the team who drafted them

Ok yea, that makes sense. Was wondering why we were even bringing up 2 ways for DiDi since we can just assign him to the G League anyway on his current contract.